T

he United States has declined to extend the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) in its current form, triggering a 10-year countdown toward the trade pact’s expiration while opening negotiations aimed at reshaping North America’s trading relationship.

The decision, announced Wednesday following the agreement’s first six-year review, keeps the USMCA in force until 2036 but subjects it to annual reviews unless the three member countries agree to renew and amend the pact.

The move reflects the Trump administration’s push to bring more manufacturing back to the United States, reduce trade deficits with Canada and Mexico, and tighten rules designed to limit China’s access to North American supply chains.

“The United States did not agree to renew the USMCA in its current form,” U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greersaid in a statement.

“As a result, the USMCA is not renewed. The United States will continue to engage with Mexico and Canada to address the agreement’s shortcomings and our trade deficits with these countries.”

The agreement, negotiated during President Donald Trump’s first administration and implemented in 2020, replaced the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It governs approximately $1.6 trillion in annual trade among the three countries and underpins one of the world’s most integrated manufacturing and supply chains.

Although the decision does not immediately alter tariff-free trade across North America, it formally launches negotiations over revisions that Washington says are necessary to strengthen domestic manufacturing and improve economic security.

A senior U.S. administration official said bilateral negotiations with Mexico are scheduled to resume during the week of July 20 in Mexico City. The talks will focus on strengthening regional rules of origin for automobiles and other industrial products while preventing countries such as China from benefiting indirectly from preferential North American trade access.

The United States argues that stricter local-content requirements would encourage manufacturers to relocate more production and supply chains to the United States.

Mexico and Canada seek compromise amid industry concerns

Mexican Economy Minister Marcelo Ebrard acknowledged that negotiations remain divided over Washington’s demands for stricter automotive content rules but expressed confidence that a compromise remains achievable.

“There is no difference that I can identify between Mexico, the United States and Canada that is so big that we cannot resolve it,” Ebrard said after holding virtual discussions with Greer and Canadian trade minister Dominic LeBlanc.

Mexico has resisted U.S. proposals requiring North American-built vehicles to contain 50% U.S.-made components, a measure that would increase the overall regional content requirement to 82%.

“We wouldn’t allow our industry to be at a disadvantage,” Ebrard said, describing protection of Mexico’s automotive sector as the central issue in ongoing negotiations.

LeBlanc said Canada would continue discussions with Washington while seeking the removal of U.S. tariffs on Canadian steel, aluminum, automobiles and lumber.

The Trump administration has argued that additional time is needed to address persistent U.S. trade imbalances, noting that America’s goods trade deficit reached $197 billion with Mexico and $48.3 billion with Canada in 2025.

Officials acknowledge that much of the Canadian deficit reflects U.S. energy imports, while the growing deficit with Mexico has been driven partly by manufacturers relocating supply chains from China to Mexico in response to U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods.

Although Washington hopes to negotiate revised trade protocols with both neighbors, officials indicated President Trump remains skeptical about the long-term benefits of the agreement despite having negotiated it during his first term.

Trump has repeatedly argued that the United States would perform better economically without the USMCA, even while calling it “the best agreement we’ve ever made” when it entered into force.

Undermining North America’s competitiveness

Business groups across North America have urged governments to preserve the agreement’s tariff-free framework, warning that greater restrictions could undermine the region’s competitiveness against manufacturers in Asia and Europe.

Ivan Espinosa, chief executive of Nissan, warned that requiring substantially higher U.S. content in vehicles could worsen affordability for American consumers.

“You cannot build all the parts in the U.S. The supply chain is not set up to do that,” Espinosa told Reuters. “We need something that is actually executable.”

Agricultural organizations have also urged negotiators to preserve the agreement, noting that Canada and Mexico together purchase more than one-third of U.S. agricultural exports.

Bryan Goodman, spokesperson for the Agricultural Coalition for USMCA, said the agreement remains vital for farmers, ranchers and rural communities that depend on integrated North American markets.

The coming negotiations are expected to determine whether the three countries can modernize the agreement while preserving the free trade framework that has shaped North American commerce for more than three decades.

(Source: Reuters)

C

anadian Prime Minister Mark Carney is visiting China this week in the first trip by a Canadian leader in nearly a decade, seeking to rebuild strained relations with Beijing and reduce Canada’s heavy economic dependence on the United States.

Carney, who arrives Wednesday, is expected to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping on Friday as part of what Canadian officials describe as an effort to re-energize a long-dormant strategic partnership. The visit comes as relations with Washington have deteriorated amid U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs and his remarks suggesting Canada could become “the 51st state.”

“At a time of global trade disruption, Canada is focused on building a more competitive, sustainable and independent economy,” Carney said in a statement, pledging to double Canada’s non-U.S. exports over the next decade.

Trade diversification drive

China is Canada’s second-largest trading partner after the United States, but bilateral ties have been strained for years by diplomatic disputes and retaliatory trade measures. Canadian officials said the visit could lead to progress on some trade irritants, though they cautioned that existing tariffs are unlikely to be fully lifted.

Beijing has imposed tariffs on Canadian products including canola, seafood and pork after Ottawa followed Washington in levying steep duties on Chinese electric vehicles, steel and aluminum. China has signaled it could ease some measures if Canada drops its 100% tariff on EVs.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said Beijing looks forward to the visit as a chance to “consolidate the momentum of improvement in China-Canada relations.”

Political sensitivities

The trip has prompted political debate at home. Two Liberal lawmakers cut short a sponsored visit to Taiwan ahead of Carney’s China trip, citing government advice to avoid confusion over Canada’s China policy. Opposition Conservatives criticized the move as capitulation to Beijing, though the government reiterated that its stance on Taiwan remains unchanged.

China claims self-governed Taiwan as its territory and has vowed to bring it under its control, by force if necessary.

Carney, who has been in office less than a year after succeeding Justin Trudeau, is also seeking to recalibrate ties beyond China. He has begun mending relations with India following a diplomatic rupture in 2024 and is expected to visit later this year.

After concluding his China trip on Saturday, Carney will travel to Qatar before attending the World Economic Forum in Davos next week, as Ottawa accelerates efforts to diversify trade and partnerships amid growing uncertainty in its relationship with Washington.

(Source: The Associated Press)

I

n a dramatic diplomatic shift, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom announced on Sunday that they are formally recognizing the State of Palestine, breaking with decades of alignment with Israel and joining a growing international push to end the war in Gaza.

The coordinated move by three of Israel’s closest Western allies piles pressure on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government and places them at odds with the United States, which continues to oppose unilateral recognition outside of direct negotiations. France is expected to follow suit at next week’s UN General Assembly, further isolating Israel as it pushes forward with a large-scale offensive on Gaza City.

In their joint statements, leaders from Ottawa, London, and Canberra cited frustration with the collapse of peace talks and the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Gaza, where UN agencies warn of famine and where dozens were reported killed Sunday in renewed Israeli strikes. The three countries said recognition was necessary to “keep alive the possibility of a two-state solution.”

Netanyahu vows: “There will be no Palestinian state”

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu rejected the move outright, vowing, “there will be no Palestinian state.” He accused the three governments of “rewarding terror” after Hamas’ October 7, 2023 attacks, and pledged to continue expanding settlements in the occupied West Bank. “The response to the latest attempt to force a terror state upon us in the heart of our land will be given after my return from the United States. Wait for it,” Netanyahu said in a fiery statement.

Palestinian officials, by contrast, welcomed the announcement. A senior Hamas figure, Basem Naim, described it as “a welcomed step” toward affirming Palestinians’ rights, but insisted it must be followed by concrete action. “The highest priority now is to stop the genocide and ethnic cleansing in the Gaza Strip and to end the humanitarian blockade,” he told CNN.

Diplomats noted that the recognition marks a watershed moment in international politics: three G7 countries openly challenging Washington’s approach to the conflict. Analysts say the decision may accelerate momentum toward broader recognition within Europe and beyond, though the absence of U.S. support continues to limit immediate diplomatic impact.

Gaza city offensive

The announcements come as the war in Gaza enters a new and deadlier phase. Israel has pressed ahead with its ground invasion of Gaza City, insisting Hamas’ leadership remains entrenched there. Aid groups warn the humanitarian situation is collapsing, with food, water, and medical supplies running dangerously low for Gaza’s 2.2 million residents.

With more nations signaling readiness to back Palestinian statehood, the diplomatic battle is likely to intensify at the UN General Assembly. For Israel, already under scrutiny at the International Court of Justice over allegations of genocide in Gaza, the recognition drive represents both a legal and political challenge. For Palestinians, long denied sovereignty, it represents a symbolic but significant step toward international legitimacy.

(Source: Aljazeera English)

C

anada’s reputation as a welcoming multicultural society is facing renewed scrutiny as a surge in Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian sentiment sweeps the country, fueled in part by the ongoing genocide in Gaza. Muslim advocacy groups, community leaders, and victims say the rise in hate incidents has reached levels unseen since the aftermath of the September 11 attacks in 2001 — and, in some cases, has now surpassed them.

The flashpoint for one recent controversy came in Toronto, where Mayor Olivia Chow posted an Instagram video greeting newly arrived Palestinian refugees with the words “Salam Aleikum! Welcome to Toronto!” Within days, the short clip had racked up 51,000 views and about 1,000 comments, more than half of which were Islamophobic, according to her office. Many mocked the refugees’ appearance, suggesting they were not truly in need.

Chow’s team said the mayor often shares stories to humanize policy decisions, but the video was removed after concerns were raised for the family’s safety. It was replaced with a statement explaining the decision, citing “abusive comments” and “safety concerns for the family.”

Predictable backlash

Fareed Khan, founder of Canadians United Against Hate, said the backlash was predictable. “Since October 2023, Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism has exploded across Canada to levels higher than they were after 9/11,” he told Anadolu Agency. Khan blamed years of normalized anti-Muslim narratives, which he said have intensified during the Gaza conflict.

For some Canadian Muslims, the rise in hostility has moved from online platforms into their neighborhoods. In Toronto’s east end, Marycarmen Lara-Villaneuva, her husband Khurram Shahzad, and their two children have been repeatedly targeted since late March. On the last day of Ramadan, a man attempted to break into their home while shouting anti-Muslim slurs. The family believes their Ramadan decorations — including an inflatable mosque and a “Ramadan Kareem” sign — made them a target.

Just two weeks later, a woman confronted Lara-Villaneuva, calling her a “terrorist” over a pro-Palestinian display outside the house. The man from the March incident was arrested but allegedly violated his release conditions twice in the following months, including by making new death threats and hurling fresh insults at Shahzad.

“We’ve had to adapt to living in fear,” Lara-Villaneuva said in an interview with CP24. “But how long are we supposed to live like this? It’s exhausting and it’s debilitating. This is our home and our community.” Shahzad added that his work-related travel now leaves him deeply uneasy about his family’s safety.

Encourage Muslims to report hate crimes

The couple has chosen to speak publicly to encourage other Muslims to report hate crimes. “It’s not just us,” Lara-Villaneuva said. “This is about the community, other racialized families, other Muslim families.”

Khan described their ordeal as “just the tip of the iceberg” in terms of anti-Muslim hate across Canada. He cited surveys showing that more than half of Canadians express distrust toward Muslims, with significant portions viewing Islam as harmful to Canadian society or blaming Muslims for the discrimination they face.

These concerns are echoed by Amira Elghawaby, Canada’s special representative on combatting Islamophobia. In her latest annual report, she wrote that Canadian Muslims are experiencing a wave of harassment, threats, vandalism, and economic consequences, including job losses and exclusion from opportunities, since the escalation of the Gaza conflict.

Her report also highlights a troubling statistic: Canada has the highest rate of targeted killings of Muslims among the G7 nations. Recent high-profile incidents include the 2017 Quebec City mosque shooting, which left six dead, and the 2021 vehicle attack in London, Ontario, that killed four members of one family. A Canadian Senate report in late 2023 catalogued dozens of other incidents — from hot drinks thrown at Muslim pedestrians to hijabs being forcibly removed.

1,000 incidents of Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism

Between October 7, 2023, and March 2024, Elghawaby said, more than 1,000 incidents of Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism were reported nationwide. “Quite simply, being Muslim in Canada is not as safe as it should be,” she wrote.

The Canadian government continues to officially promote the country as a “multicultural, pluralistic nation” that embraces diversity. But for many Muslims living in Canada today, the reality feels increasingly different. The growing hostility — whether in the form of online abuse, physical intimidation, or systemic discrimination — is forcing them to navigate daily life with heightened vigilance.

As Lara-Villaneuva put it, “We’ve taken steps to proactively protect our family, but there’s only so much we can do.” Her words capture a wider sentiment in Canada’s Muslim community: that the promise of multicultural harmony will remain unfulfilled unless society confronts the prejudice still simmering beneath the surface.

(Source: Anadolu News)

I

n a major policy move with wide-ranging global repercussions, U.S. President Donald Trump has reimposed tariffs on imports from nearly 70 countries, reviving and expanding a central theme of his “America First” trade strategy. The new tariffs, formalized in an executive order signed on July 31, range from 10 percent to 41 percent and target some of the United States’ closest trading partners, as well as traditional adversaries.

Citing the “continued lack of reciprocity in our bilateral trade relationships,” Trump justified the move as necessary to address what he described as an ongoing national emergency under Executive Order 14257. The tariffs, described by the White House as “reciprocal duties,” are structured to penalize countries where the U.S. maintains a trade deficit while rewarding those with favorable trade balances.

While most of the tariffs are scheduled to go into effect on August 7, tariffs on Canada took effect immediately on August 1. Trump increased Canadian tariffs from 25 percent to 35 percent, accusing Ottawa of failing to stem the flow of fentanyl and other synthetic opioids into the U.S.

Canada and Others

In a separate fact sheet, the administration outlined specific grievances with Canada’s border enforcement and cooperation on drug trafficking. The sharp escalation drew criticism from Canadian officials, though Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has yet to comment publicly.

Among the 69 countries affected, tariff rates vary dramatically. U.S. allies like the United Kingdom and Australia received baseline 10 percent tariffs, while others saw significantly higher rates:

The inconsistent rates have confounded trade analysts. Deborah Elms, head of trade policy at the Hinrich Foundation, called the formula “illogical and politically motivated.” She told Al Jazeera, “The original formula may have been flawed, but it had internal coherence. This new list appears arbitrary.”

According to Steve Okun, CEO of APAC Advisors, “Each country gets its own tariff rate based on the president’s current view—trade-related or not. There’s no overarching trade theory here.”

Countries such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, Algeria, South Africa, and Libya also face tariffs of 30 percent or more, despite having relatively modest trade volumes with the U.S.

Space for Negotiation

Despite the sharp rhetoric and steep penalties, the administration left the door open for negotiations. With tariffs on most countries delayed until August 7, the White House appears to be inviting last-minute bargaining. Inu Manak, a trade expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, explained: “Countries already in talks with the U.S. now have a week to finalize a deal and avoid being hit.”

The Trump administration has already concluded new trade arrangements with several partners, including, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam,  the Philippines, Cambodia, Indonesia, Thailand and Pakistan.

These agreements reportedly involve changes in market access, rules of origin, and sectoral protections in exchange for lower tariffs.

China and Mexico: High Stakes, Different Timelines

Two of the world’s largest exporters to the United States—China and Mexico—were notably absent from the current tariff list. But both are under pressure.

Following a high-level meeting in Stockholm, China has until August 12 to strike a new deal with Washington or face a 30 percent blanket tariff on most exports. The stakes are especially high given the fragility of the global economy and China’s export dependence.

Meanwhile, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum secured a 90-day extension on tariff increases after a direct call with Trump. According to a statement from Sheinbaum, the two leaders agreed to continue dialogue to forge a long-term agreement.

The White House also announced forthcoming changes to rules of origin, designed to curb the use of third-country transshipment to evade tariffs. Goods shipped indirectly to the U.S. will now face stricter documentation and inspection, with full technical guidelines expected later in August.

While aimed at stopping trade circumvention, these changes could disrupt supply chains, especially in electronics, textiles, and auto parts—sectors that rely on complex cross-border production.

Political Motivations and Economic Risks

The latest tariffs come as Trump ramps up his 2026 midterm campaign messaging, appealing to working-class voters and manufacturing states. He has positioned tariffs as a tool for economic sovereignty, national security, and job creation.

However, economists and industry leaders warn that the long-term impact could be harmful. Sectors such as construction, retail, automotive, and manufacturing are likely to experience rising costs, which could trickle down to consumers.

The international backlash has already begun. Several governments have hinted at retaliation or WTO challenges. Trade experts warn of renewed trade wars, higher inflation, and decreased investor confidence if escalation continues.

Trump’s tariffs mark a significant shift away from the multilateralism that has underpinned global trade since World War II. Instead, the administration is embracing a transactional, country-by-country approach that prioritizes bilateral deals over global consensus.

“There is no longer one U.S. trade policy,” said Deborah Elms. “There are 70 U.S. trade policies—one for each country.”

With just days left before many of the tariffs take effect, the world’s trading partners are scrambling to renegotiate terms, challenge the measures, or brace for economic fallout. For Trump, the tariffs represent strategic leverage. For others, they may usher in a new era of global economic uncertainty.

ٍ(Source: Aljazeera)

I

n a significant move amid the ongoing conflict in Gaza, Canada has announced the cessation of all arms exports to Israel. This decision, confirmed by a Canadian government official on March 19, marks a notable shift in Canada’s stance toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and has drawn swift reactions from both sides.

The decision to halt arms shipments comes amidst mounting international scrutiny of Israel’s actions in the Gaza Strip, where a protracted conflict has resulted in a dire humanitarian crisis. With hundreds of thousands of Gazans on the brink of famine and widespread devastation, pressure has been mounting on countries supplying arms to Israel to reassess their policies.

Foreign Minister Israel Katz responded to Canada’s decision, expressing regret and asserting Israel’s right to self-defense. Katz criticized the move, stating that it undermines Israel’s security and warning that history will judge Canada’s action harshly. The response underscores the sensitivity and gravity of the decision, which has implications for diplomatic relations between the two countries.

Support from the US

Canada’s foreign minister, Melanie Joly, explained the rationale behind the decision in an interview with the Toronto Star newspaper. Joly cited the situation on the ground, characterized by ongoing conflict and humanitarian crisis, as the driving factor behind the halt in arms exports to Israel.

The move has garnered support from some quarters, including U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, who welcomed Canada’s decision. Sanders emphasized the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and called for a cessation of military support to Israel. The endorsement from prominent figures highlights the global attention and concern surrounding the situation in Gaza and the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Canada’s decision to halt arms shipments to Israel marks a departure from its previous policies. Historically, Israel has been a significant recipient of Canadian arms exports, with millions of dollars’ worth of military equipment shipped annually. However, in light of recent events and mounting criticism, Canada has opted to reassess its relationship with Israel and prioritize humanitarian considerations.

Broader international efforts to address the crisis in Gaza

The cessation of arms exports is not only a symbolic gesture but also a practical step toward addressing the root causes of the conflict and promoting a peaceful resolution. By cutting off the supply of weapons to Israel, Canada aims to reduce the violence and contribute to efforts aimed at achieving a lasting ceasefire and eventual resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The decision comes amidst broader international efforts to address the crisis in Gaza and advance peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. In recent months, there has been a renewed push for a two-state solution, with calls for the international community to intervene and facilitate dialogue between the parties.

In Canada, the decision to halt arms shipments to Israel has received bipartisan support, with the Canadian Parliament passing a nonbinding resolution calling for a two-state solution. The resolution reflects growing consensus within Canada’s political establishment on the need for a peaceful resolution to the conflict and underscores the importance of international cooperation in achieving this goal.

While Canada’s decision may face criticism from some quarters, it signals a principled stance on human rights and international law. By halting arms exports to Israel, Canada reaffirms its commitment to promoting peace, stability, and respect for human rights in the Middle East and beyond. As the conflict in Gaza continues to unfold, Canada’s actions serve as a reminder of the importance of diplomacy, dialogue, and adherence to humanitarian principles in resolving conflicts and advancing peace.

Source: The New Arab

I

n a move to strengthen international economic partnerships and assert its global trade presence, Taiwan signed a significant bilateral investment agreement with Canada on December 22.

This development marks a strategic effort by Taiwan to deepen relations with democratic allies, amidst increasing Chinese assertiveness over the island which Beijing claims as its territory.

The investment deal, concluded after talks in October, is seen by Taiwan as a key step in enhancing its ties with Western nations and as a potential facilitator for its entry into the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).

Actively seeking support

The agreement comes at a time when Taiwan is actively seeking support from major democracies to counter China’s escalating military and diplomatic pressure.

Canada, which is set to chair the CPTPP next year, was represented by its chief diplomat in Taiwan, Jim Nickel. The Canadian Trade Office in Taipei, which functions as Canada’s de facto embassy, heralded the agreement as a milestone that will provide predictability and foster mutual economic growth between the two economies.

Taiwan’s Office of Trade Negotiations underscored the agreement’s alignment with high standards on key issues, such as environmental protection and governance, which are in line with the trade norms upheld by CPTPP countries.

Taiwan’s bid to join the trade pact

This alignment is expected to bolster Taiwan’s bid to join the trade pact, contrasting with Beijing’s approach by emphasizing Taipei’s commitment to transparency and the rule of law.

The tension between China and Canada, which has recently soured, adds a layer of complexity to the agreement. Taiwan has vehemently rejected China’s claims of sovereignty, maintaining its status as a self-governed democracy.

While Canada, like most nations, does not have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, the two have established strong unofficial links, highlighted by reciprocal de facto embassies.

This bilateral investment agreement signifies not just an economic partnership but also a geopolitical statement, as Taiwan navigates its complex international position against China’s territorial assertions.

Source: Reuters

I

n 2023, Father’s Day fell on Sunday, June 18, when the world annually celebrates and honors fatherhood and its influence on society. For Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a father of two sons, like any other father in the world, this day should have been filled with joy and celebration. What should have been a great day, however, abruptly turned into a day of horror.

The phone at Nijjar’s home rang on Sunday, and a family friend informed them that Nijjar had been shot outside the Guru Nanak Sikh Gurdwara Temple. Ten minutes earlier, Nijjar was speaking on the phone with his son, Balraj, who told him that the family was going to have pizza and seviyan, vermicelli pudding, Nijjar’s favorite dessert.

His family and friends in the Sikh community were immediately almost certain who was behind the attack: Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. But why would the prime minister be suspected of having anything to do with the attack?

Who was Hardeep Singh Nijjar?

Hardeep Singh Nijjar was a Canadian citizen who was born in India and ran a plumbing business in Surrey, British Columbia. He was also the head of the Guru Nanak Sikh Gurdwara Temple in Surrey, and an outspoken leader of the Khalistan movement, a separatist movement that seeks to establish an independent Sikh homeland in the Punjab region of India. Due to its separatist nature, the movement is banned in India.

Nijjar’s support and leadership in the movement brought him to the attention of the Indian security services. In July 2022, they labeled him as a “fugitive terrorist” for his alleged murder of a Hindu priest in the Punjab region. The tension between Nijjar and the Indian government has led to speculation that the government may be responsible for Nijjar’s assassination.

Canadian security agencies were aware of the peril surrounding Nijjar, as revealed by Balpreet Singh Boparai, the legal representative of the World Sikh Organization of Canada. Several weeks before Nijjar’s assassination, Boparai took the initiative to contact the Canadian law enforcement to warn them about the potential threats to Nijjar’s safety. Boparai claimed that the Canadian authorities did not take sufficient steps to safeguard Nijjar.

Canada holds India responsible for the assassination

On Monday, September 18, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced in Parliament that Canadian security agencies are investigating “credible allegations” that potentially link the Indian government to Nijjar’s assassination. Trudeau also mentioned that he conveyed his “deep concerns” to Modi at the G-20 summit in New Delhi earlier in the month, seeking cooperation in the investigation.

“Any involvement of a foreign government in the killing of a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil is an unacceptable violation of our sovereignty,” said Trudeau.

India’s Foreign Ministry dismissed the allegations, calling it “absurd” and an attempt to divert attention from the real issue: Canada’s protection of Indian individuals who are on New Delhi’s list of terrorists. Since then, relations between the two countries have taken a turn for the worse.

Deterioration of Canada and India’s relations

Even before this confrontation, the two countries’ diplomatic relations were becoming strained. Ten days before Nijjar’s assassination, during a press conference, India expressed its concerns about Canada’s sheltering of Sikh separatists, and claimed that it was not good for the relationship between the two countries.

Furthermore, a week ahead of Trudeau’s accusation, Canada cancelled a trade trip to India that was scheduled for early October. “Trade appears to have become a casualty of deepening tensions,” said Michael Kugelman, director of the South Asia Institute at the Wilson Center, a Washington D.C.-based think tank. Kugelman added that the tension was rising simultaneously with the growth of Sikh activism in Canada, the UK, the U.S., and Australia.

After Trudeau’s accusation, Canada and India have both expelled senior diplomats. Moreover, India has temporarily suspended visa applications for Canadian citizens until further notice, with immediate effect as of September 21, 2023. The Indian Ministry of External Affairs explained that they stopped giving visas because of “security risks” that the Indian High Commission and consulates in Canada are currently facing.

“The issue is of incitement of violence, the inaction by the Canadian authorities, [and] the creation of an environment that disrupts the functioning of our high commission and consulates,” said Arindam Bagchi, the ministry’s spokesperson. “That’s what’s making us stop temporarily the issuance of visas or providing visa services,” he added. India has also warned travelers to Canada about growing “anti-India activities.”

In response, Trudeau tried to deescalate the situation and has called on India to cooperate with his government and allow justice to take its course. He explained that Canada is not trying to cause problems and is simply following the rule of law to achieve justice.

It’s uncertain whether the bilateral relations between Canada and India will improve, as India accuses Canada of harboring Indian dissidents, while Sikh demonstrators in Canada are calling for the expulsion of the Indian ambassador.

India told Canada to reduce the number of its diplomats in India, and it seems that the next few days will reveal the extent of diplomatic rift the two countries will have in the future.

A

 new partnership agreement between the U.S. and Canada was recently signed. The bilateral agreement is intended to decrease security challenges faced by both countries, and represents the strengthening of an alliance that was already in place.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau met in Canada to conclude a new agreement on defense. The meeting took place on October 27-28, 2022 and aimed to develop stronger relations between the United States and Canada.

Background of U.S.-Canada Relations

Considering the strong relations of the two countries, it is reasonable for them to continue their partnership in a good manner. The United States and Canada operate together when it comes to foreign policy and border issues. The Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) is a free trade agreement signed between the three countries, replacing NAFTA. It was signed in 2018 and 2019 (after being revised) and it is valid for 16 years. Moreover, the U.S. and Canada share “democratic values” such as freedom of speech and freedom of choice, which has helped them further strengthen their ties. Additionally, they share a neoliberal approach on international issues which favors an open capitalist system.

The main concerns of the new partnership agreement can be divided into two categories: first, it focuses on reducing the side effects of developing technologies, and second, the agreement is concerned with the issue of climate change and its impact on international security.

International order crisis?

The war between Ukraine and Russia has ascertained the importance of security in the present international order. Countries act in accordance with their own interests, and when it comes to differences between nations with dissimilar norms and values, different regimes feel threatened by one another. “Whereas countries with democratic roots do not fight reciprocally, but promote peace and have friendly relations with each other, authoritarian states are not seeking alliances and focus on their interests,” claims General Wayne Donald Eyre during a conversation about the new defense alliance.

The ineffectiveness of liberal institutions acknowledged by the ongoing war between Ukraine and Russia, pushed Canada and the U.S. to collaborate so that a conflict resulting from the absence of an ultimate authority in the international system would be minimized. Stated differently, the agreement endeavors to decrease international disputes.

Operation UNIFIER

The Canadian Armed Forces via Operation UNIFIER intended to provide critical military training to the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The operation also aimed to provide aid to the country. It should be noted that the invasion of Ukraine has a special importance for Canada considering that Canada has the third largest Ukrainian population in the world following Ukraine and Russia. The Ukrainian diaspora in Canada could cause instabilities both politically and economically.

On a different note, Russia’s possible use of nuclear weapons endangers not only Ukraine but the entire world.

Climate change as an obstacle

Global warming leads to another security problem. Lack of natural resources resulting from natural disasters increase the level of migration. When a population increases beyond what a state can handle, it can encounter sociocultural, economic, and political challenges.

The ice in Canada’s Arctic region has been melting because of global warming which has brought forth security problems in the region: other countries have shown increased interest in this region given the fact that the melting of the ice could reveal natural resources. Commander of the U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) General Glen. D. VanHerck warns about Russia’s long-range cruise missiles and highlights the importance of building better defense strategies in the region against possible threats.

Together with bilateral defense agreements, Canada’s purpose is not only to prevent any tensions in the Arctic but to reach a broader agreement on defense issues. The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) spends $38-39 billion on the American-Canadian North Warning System.

Rapid technological advancements

Technological improvements and the ways in which they could provoke tensions in the international arena are also a factor that led to the U.S.-Canada partnership agreement. Technology changes so fast that countries struggle to keep up. Moreover, brand-new technological advances require wealth, infrastructure, and trained staff who can use the most up-to-date machines and software.

What is more, in times of armed conflict, defense expenses increase because of the increase in demand. All factors considered, by virtue of the latest agreement, the U.S. and Canada strengthened their defense industrial base based on decreasing competition and facing common threats.

The defense partnership between the U.S. and Canada is predominantly preoccupied with the security challenges of the modern-day world. Both countries’ defense strategies are subcategorized under climate change and technological affairs.

On July 25, 2022, Pope Francis personally apologized for the Church’s role in the decades-old plight of indigenous communities in Canada. More than 150,000 indigenous children were forced to attend the church-run residential schools, where they were physically and mentally abused and died in countless numbers.

“I am deeply sorry—sorry for the ways in which, regrettably, many Christians supported the colonizing mentality of the powers that oppressed the Indigenous Peoples,” Pope Francis said, as he spoke to a crowd of 15,000 people during his week-long “penitential pilgrimage.”

Survivors in Canada had repeatedly demanded that the pope apologize for the Church’s role in the “cultural genocide” with calls multiplying last year after the groundbreaking discovery of unmarked graves near residential schools.

The findings triggered a nationwide outrage over the atrocities committed against Canada’s Indigenous communities and gravely affected the pope’s reputation. “I feel sorrow and shame for the role of a number of Catholics,” the pope said to the representatives of survivors in Rome on April 1, 2022. Last year, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was the first head of state to publicly apologize for the crimes committed by residential schools.

Though the Church’s apology in Canada was the latest to hit the headlines, it wasn’t the first apology by Pope Francis or his predecessors. In fact, it was a further addition to a series of papal apologies.

Sweden’s dark past

Last November, the Swedish Church officially apologized for its centuries-old repression and abuse of Sami people.

The Sami are indigenous to countries like Sweden, Finland, Norway, and northern Russia. For more than 400 years, the Swedish government, along with the Church, suppressed their language and culture, subjected them to racial abuse, and forcefully assimilated them to Christianity. Their land was exploited and their social ties were broken. Resulting from the colonial school system practiced at the time, the majority of Sami children were forced to leave their homes.

“We have been curved inward on ourselves, we have not stood up to racism and abuse of power. Our backs are bent by the guilt we carry. We have placed unjust burdens on you. We have burdened your ancestors with shame and pain that has been inherited by new generations,” Archbishop Antje Jackelén said as he apologized during a special service.

The effects of “unjust burdens” mentioned by Jackelén are still traumatizing for many Sami people.

The apology will be made twice. A second public apology is expected in the upcoming Sámi church conference in Luleå in October 2022.

 France’s hidden sins

On October 6, 2021, Pope Francis expressed “shame” and apologized on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church for the grave acts committed by pedophile priests in France. His remarks came after a shocking report which revealed that 330,000 French children were sexually abused by Church authorities over a period of more than 70 years.

According to the independent commission report, an estimated 216,000 people were abused by priests, clerics, and other church figures. The report also revealed that most of the victims were boys aged between 10 and 13.

“I would like to express to the victims my sadness, my sorrow for the trauma that they have suffered,” Pope Francis said to his weekly audience in the Vatican last October. He urged all bishops in France to make sure that the church is “a safe place for all.”

The grave crimes of the Church and the demands for an apology have not been limited to the above examples. In fact, forceful assimilation, starvation, and sexual abuses have carved a bitter mark on the history of countries like Australia, Chile, and Ireland.

The willingness to apologize has almost become a defining characteristic of the modern papacy. Unlike popes in the past, Pope Francis stands with the victims and assures them of his support. Whether apologies are enough is up for debate.

Despite the national outrage caused by last summer’s terrorism attack in London, Ontario, when a right-wing extremist used his truck to target and kill four members of a Canadian Muslim family, Islamophobia continues to persist in Canadian politics. Earlier this month, the Alliance Citoyenne Quebec, a marginal party competing in next month’s municipal elections, issued a statement declaring that: “Islam is contrary to fundamental Quebec values. Islam is a cancer that is slowly growing inside Quebec society.”

The statement was released by the proudly Islamophobic party’s candidate for mayor of Quebec City, Alain Giasson, in response to the candidacy of Boufeldja Benabdallah. Benabdallah is running in the Cap-aux-Diamants district for Équipe Marie-Josée Savard, the heir-apparent of outgoing mayor Régis Labeaum, who will be stepping down from politics.

Giasson told CTV News that: “The trigger [for the statement] was the fact that the co-founder of the Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec [Benabdallah] is up for election… His whole adult life in Quebec City, he has worked very publicly for the Islamization of Quebec.”

This justification is even more startling considering that in 2017, six Muslim men were shot dead at the Islamic Cultural Centre. The murder victims were: Ibrahima Barry, 39; Mamadou Tanou Barry, 42; Khaled Belkacemi, 60; Aboubaker Thabti, 44; Abdelkrim Hassane, 41; and Azzedine Soufiane; 57. Nineteen other worshippers were injured.

After decades of campaigning, Benabdallah helped to launch the region’s first Muslim cemetery in 2019. Giasson cites this move as proof of Islamization. Benabdallah, who has lived in Canada for more than 50 years now, told media that: “I was really hurt that there are still people who don’t see me as a citizen, who just see me as a religion.”

Although the party’s statement was subject to a hate speech complaint, Elections Quebec, the agency that oversees campaigns across the province, refused to intervene because of its proclaimed “neutrality,” saying that there is “no Quebec law that addresses the content of political platforms.” Note, this comes only months after the national government held a conference on the importance of combatting Islamophobia in Canada.

In Quebec, the majority of its citizens are still Catholic, and historically the Catholic Church “took advantage of this situation to guide the French-Canadian population through institutions and symbolism.” Although Québécois finally started to embrace secularism with the rest of Canada, spurred on by the Quiet Revolution (1960–1970), many Quebecois still saw – and continue to see – other religions as a threat to their own Christian identity.

As Quebec has increasingly become more multicultural with the arrival of new immigrants, the divisions have intensified. The white, Francophone population often express their outrage towards demands from minorities who request reasonable accommodation for their religious practices. The government of Quebec eventually created the Consultation Commission on Accommodation Practices Related to Cultural Differences in 2007. However, the resulting report further erased the presence of religious difference in the province by “recommend[ing] that agents of the state be banned from wearing any religious symbols.”

This is why earlier this year, the Quebec Superior Court upheld the new Quebec law barring civil servants in positions of “authority” from wearing religious symbols at work, saying that “Quebec had the right to restrict the religious symbols donned by government employees.” The law mainly targets Muslim women and members of other minority religions, not Christians, which demonstrates a clear bias against some groups over others.

This is a key feature of the brand of secularism that Quebec has embraced, after the French model. This kind of secularism claims to be neutral, instead of geographically linked to the West and favoring Christianity. As a result, other religions are marginalized.

Today, the problem of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred is not limited to Quebec or Canada; a significant portion of Western society also questions if Muslims can be good citizens. Many scholars now argue that Muslims are perceived as dangerous or threatening to society if they are openly Muslim. The result has been stark: Muslims in the West are tolerated only so long as they do not make any political claims and practice their religion in private. When Muslims do become politically active, Islamophobia flourishes. Although the national conversation is improving, the stark reality is that almost half of Canadians (46%) still viewed Islam unfavorably in a 2017 poll conducted by the Angus Reid Institute.

Muslims in the West are tolerated only so long as they do not make any political claims and practice their religion in private.

Fortunately, the Alliance Citoyenne Quebec is a marginal party: in the previous election, Giasson only received 0.61 per cent of the vote. Furthermore, in 2017, the party ran 13 candidates, whereas only five are running this year on election day, November 7. Nevertheless, it should not take two massacres for Canadian politicians to firmly address the scourge of Islamophobia that persists in Canadian society and politics. The country’s secular institutions are only fueling the problem, not offering any working solutions.

Over the months of May and June 2021, hundreds of unmarked graves of Indigenous children have been exposed in Kamloops, Brandon, Marieval, and Cranbrook across what is today called Canada. Many more are sure to be exposed in the coming months. All of them were near the former sites of Canadian “Indian Residential Schools,” which were fundamentally institutions of forced assimilation and genocide, more appropriately called prisons than “schools.”

I want to emphasize the word “exposed” here because none of these stories of children murdered by Canada’s structural violences, abandoned and disposed in unmarked graves, are new to Indigenous people. They have known, lived, and survived these stories for decades. The Canadian state itself also knew about these stories but has been for years actively trying to conceal the horrific crimes it has committed. This story is only “new and shocking” to a Canadian and international public that has bought into Canada’s projected self-image of an enlightened and progressive state and society.

Canada promotes itself on the world stage as a progressive model of “liberal democracy” in which ideals of “reconciliation,” “tolerance,” “multiculturalism,” “justice,” and “truth-seeking” flourish within its state structures. This diplomatic image is misleading though, and Canada’s crimes against Indigenous Peoples are only properly understood, not when they are posited as “dark chapters” or “historical mistakes,” but when they are situated within the historical and ongoing context of the imposition of a genocidal settler colonial sovereignty.

In today’s political discourse, the term sovereignty has become associated with the modern nation-state, where a central sovereign political body practices, at least in theory, supreme authority over a specified land and people. This is especially the case in settler colonial contexts like Canada, where Indigenous people are largely viewed as another minority group that must be assimilated into the supreme sovereignty of the Canadian state, as opposed to what they in fact are: sovereign original Peoples.

Throughout their long history and until today, Indigenous Peoples from First Nations, Inuit, and Métis have developed complex societies with complex systems of social and political organization

Sovereignty did not always follow this Euro-American colonial meaning or practice. Throughout their long history and until today, Indigenous Peoples from First Nations, Inuit, and Métis have developed complex societies with complex systems of social and political organization. Within these rich traditions and societies, multiple forms of sovereignty were imagined, theorized, and practiced.

It is impossible to fully explain what Indigenous sovereignty means in a short piece. But what we can say is that Indigenous sovereignty that flourished prior to colonization and still survives today in the values, praxis, and indeed existence of Indigenous people, is generally layered and shared.

As we learn from the writings of Indigenous scholars like Audra Simpson, Leanne Betasamosake Simpson, and Glen Coulthard, decolonial Indigenous sovereignty gleans its authority from living with the land and in openness towards difference and the plurality of people. It asserts a communal type of freedom and a responsibility to each other and to the land. Whereas the settler colonial state sees the self-determination of the nation as exclusive to an imagined homogenized and purified racial identity, Indigenous sovereignty in its foundation is open and attentive to difference, plurality, and sharing.

Foundationally speaking, Canada is an ethnonational state because it refuses to acknowledge the political rights of Indigenous Peoples as sovereign Nations, and asserts instead exclusive sovereign authority for what it imagines as the British and French “founding nations” of Canada.

Under the veneer of Canada’s image as a multicultural liberal democracy is the ongoing operation of structural settler colonial violences.

In short, under the veneer of Canada’s image as a multicultural liberal democracy is the ongoing operation of structural settler colonial violences, which eliminate Indigenous people and sovereignty and replace them with settler colonists and exclusive European settler colonial sovereignty.

Where is Canada’s truth and reconciliation?

Responding to the Chinese government’s call for the United Nations to investigate Canadian crimes against Indigenous Peoples, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had this to say:

“The journey of reconciliation is a long one, but it is a journey we are on. China is not recognizing even that there is a problem. That is a pretty fundamental difference. In Canada, we had a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Where is China’s truth and reconciliation commission? Where is their truth? Where is the openness that Canada has always shown and the responsibility that Canada has taken for the terrible mistakes of the past, and indeed, many of which continue into the present?”

Trudeau is referring here to China’s “systemic abuse and human rights violations against the Uyghurs.”

It is of course highly doubtful that the Chinese government is genuinely concerned about the well-being of Indigenous Peoples, any more than the Canadian government is genuinely concerned about the well-being of the Uyghurs. It seems to me that both are using each other’s state violences as a means through which they can advance their own state strategic interests.

Putting that aside, and more to the point, is Canada really interested in the truth? And has it taken serious responsibility for its ongoing structural settler colonial violences? The answer for both is clearly, no.

First, it is important to clarify that the Canadian government did not, as Trudeau’s quote seems to suggest, initiate the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) because it wanted to do the right thing and uncover the truth. Survivors of the Canadian forced assimilation prisons were successful in forcing the Canadian state to create the TRC, among other things such as issuing a public apology.

After long legal battles, in May 2006, parties which included, legal counsel for former students, legal counsel for the Churches, the Assembly of First Nations, other Indigenous organizations and the Government of Canada approved the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement which began in September 2007. A critical part of this agreement was that the Canadian state would establish the TRC. Thus, it wasn’t Canada’s moral compass that drove the public inquiry into the truth of these “schools,” but rather pressure from Indigenous people and organizations, which forced the truth out of the Canadian state.

Second, many of the TRC’s Calls to Action are yet unfulfilled, and reconciliation remains an empty promise. In a recent analysis, Tom McMahon, former general legal counsel to the TRC and previously executive secretary to the Manitoba Aboriginal Justice Inquiry, lists some of the many Calls to Action that have been completely ignored by the Canadian government, including simple ones, such as creating a monument to honor the Survivors and the victims of “Residential Schools.”

More damning still, scholars Eva Jewell who is Anishinaabekwe and Ian Mosby in a recent special report concluded from their study that “In 2020 … our analysis reveals that just 8 Calls to Action have been implemented, this is down from 9 in 2019. Ultimately, we find that Canada is failing residential school Survivors and their families.” To put it bluntly, that’s a pathetic number: 8 out of 94 Calls to Action. Given this reality, how can anyone take Canada’s proclaimed commitment to reconciliation seriously?

The Canadian public has not been immune from globalized Islamophobic and anti-Arab discourse in popular media. However, we have a problematic local political history that we need to contend with. It was in 1975 that the Globe and Mail published a false story during Montreal’s hosting of the 1976 Olympics, claiming that the Mounties had uncovered a conspiracy by fourteen Canadian Arabs to commit terrorism at the Games. The justice minister and the RCMP commissioner denied the story, but it was picked up by every newspaper and TV and radio station across the country.

During the first Gulf War, Canada joined forces with the United States and began targeting its own Iraqi-Canadian population with CSIS interrogations as it was receiving intelligence from Canadian posts in Iraq. Iraqi-Canadians were pulled out of workplaces, called at home and asked pointed questions about whether they supported Canadian “allies” in the gulf war. At this time, stories of “internal threats” in Canada were rampant in the media, filtered through often less than rigorous journalistic standards.

On January 6 1991, ten days before the United States began bombing Baghdad, the Toronto Sun published a story identifying 12 “pro-Iraqi agents” in Toronto, planning a “disturbance” in case war began in Iraq. A few days later, the Sun ran a headline that read “Police Task Force Targets Agents of Terror.” A slew of “terrorism alerts” were published in various newspapers in Toronto, feeding off of each other, unverifiable by their purported sources.

Discourse about anti-terrorism rang through media without much activity to qualify it, sensationalizing banal threats and connecting it to the language of the “war on terror,” which many Canadians often think began after 9/11. The stories ended up focusing more on security alerts than terrorist activities. The Canadian government did little to dispel this paranoia and CSIS continued to interrogate Iraqi Canadians.

Decades later, when—in the same week—a Muslim family of 5 (the Afzaal family) is run over in London, Ontario (leaving a nine year old boy as the only survivor); three white people show up at a mosque in Toronto, threatening to detonate a bomb, and a black Muslim woman is attacked in Edmonton,  the Canadian public is asking, “How did we get here?,” “How did this happen?” When the Quebec shootings during which six Muslims were killed and eight injured in prayer in 2017 happens in cold blood; when mosque caretaker Mohamed-Aslim Zafis was brutally slain by a white supremacist in Toronto last year, politicians state: “this is not our Canada” and other similar rhetorical repulsions of this violence.

The truth is that Islamophobia has been a fundamental part of the Canadian political fabric and public discourse for decades, operating to help define Canadianness through the very abjection of Muslims, Arabs and other minorities who are read as Muslim or Arab. And this abjection is reproduced and protected by state systems and institutions.

The Toronto Police have been recently reacting in a biased fashion, protecting white supremacists during their marches of propaganda while at the same time CSIS is often found undercover at university campuses in the greater Toronto area, trying to entrap Muslim students into saying something hateful, sometimes even knocking on their doors.

Islamophobic discourse in Canada is often closely linked with “anti-immigration” discourse in politics. Indeed, many extremist groups like the Yellow Vest movement in Canada (to be distinguished in content and nature from the Yellow Vesters in France), and PEGIDA, the Three Percenters have an affinity to politicians who express anti-immigration rhetoric.

In recent years, the tenets of Canada’s Multiculturalism Act have been articulated through the accommodation model—that “Old Stock Canadians” are accommodating Muslims and require of them full cultural assimilation (relying on misleading tropic binaries of cultural differences).

In April 2009, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, Jason Kenney delivered a speech entitled, “Good Citizenship: The Duty to Integrate” at Huron University College’s Canadian Leaders Speakers’ Series. The minister noted that The Multiculturalism Act and The Citizenship Act and programs are “pathway[s] through which people must pass to join our Canadian political community.”

Anchoring the concept of old stock Canadians, Kenney cites The Unfinished Canadian, which “deplores the way Canada is becoming…‘The greatest hotel on earth.’” Kenney urges his audience “to take this metaphor of ‘Hotel Canada’ very seriously.” Quoting Rudyard Griffiths, he goes on that this phenomenon “is undermining the very strengths and underpinnings that have made Canada a great country. The lack of knowledge of what has given us the country we know, he warns, is potentially disastrous.”

The idea of “race suicide” is a common rhetoric of extremist groups who are often prophesizing about an imminent so-called Islamicization of Canada. Islamophobic violence is seen as a kind of “defense” or necessary evil to stop this takeover, however, this fear and hate is quite literally born out of the decades of Islamophobic myth creation—supported by Canadian media and the state—that would come to validate Western hands in imperial projects in the Middle East.

In 2015, Kellie Leitch and Chris Alexander (politicians and former members of the Conservative Party) implemented The Barbaric Cultural Practices Act (a snitch line through which one could call about their Muslim neighbors’ violence against women), framing domestic violence as particularly unique to Muslim families. This was following the tragic “honor killing” of Aqsa Parvez. In the same year, there were 84 domestic homicides in Ontario related to Intimate Partner Violence, not to mention horrific structural violence against indigenous women.

Yet, Parvez’ murder is seen to have been exceptional to this national epidemic of violence against women, across identity group categories. Leitch’s policies framed Gender Based Violence as exceptional to Muslim cultures, further dichotomizing Islam and Canadianness. Islamophobia is not growing in some seedy corner of Canadian society—it is being nourished in the public eye, for all to see. It is stitched in the fabric of our political atmosphere.

Kenney’s anti-immigration rhetoric, Stephen Harper’s introduction of Bill C24 (essentially creating a second class citizenship system, disproportionately affecting the Muslim community), and more overtly, Paul Fromm’s (Hamilton mayoral candidate) public celebratory description of the 2019 New Zealand massacre (wherein a white male killed 51 Muslims and injured 40 during Friday prayers) as “cogent” and the alarmingly significant amount of votes for Faith Goldy’s run for Toronto mayor despite her right wing extremist work with the Daily Stormer all illustrate the banality of Islamophobic hate speech in mainstream politics—legitimating the “race suicide” thesis. Such an environment sews the seeds of hate, no matter how covertly this normalization hides behind immigration restriction or integration policies.

Many in the Canadian Muslim community were uncomfortable with the ways in which politicians from the liberal and conservative parties showed up to the emotional vigil for the Afzaal family in London, Ontario last week, arguing that it felt like they were using it as a political platform and not addressing the culpability of Canadian institutions in fear mongering and vilifying Muslims.

Currently, Quebec’s Bill 21 bans religious symbols prohibiting Muslim women from wearing hijab in positions of authority in the workplace as well as public sector jobs; and there appear to be hesitant and murky debates about opposing anti-Islamophobia legislation. The M-103 motion which condemns Islamophobia has seen some debate within the Conservative Party since 2017; and Doug Ford (the Premier of Ontario) blocked a motion on Islamophobia two days after the June 2021 London vigil (even if another was put forth, afterwards).